Logic has taken one brutal beating recently from Condoleezza Rice and from our former Vice President, Mr. Cheney. For example, this past week, which was the last week in April, Madame Rice, addressing a group of Stanford University Students, was asked about waterboarding. She provided an answer that was convoluted as well as full of holes. In essence, it was sort of a syllogism. Madame Rice said that the President (George W. Bush) had authorized the use of “advanced interrogation techniques.” That was her major premise in this syllogism. The minor premise was that these techniques had been carried out by members of the CIA and other agencies of the American government. The conclusion to this syllogism was that because “these techniques” were authorized by the President they were in accord with American law and custom. I strongly descent from this conclusion.
I dislike having a dispute with a gentle lady like Madame Rice but I must point out that the so-called “advanced interrogation techniques” include waterboarding. Waterboarding has been universally described as torture by many governments including our own. People have been executed for carrying out this piece of torture. Yet it seems that Madame Rice says that if the President authorized it, it is therefore proper and legal. I gag at this thought.
The second thought has to do with Dick Cheney. You may recall that he was the Vice President of the United States who predicted that the war in Iraq would be of very short duration. He also predicted that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. Midway through the war, Cheney announced that the people who objected to our presence were in the “final throes of their insurgency.” And, finally, Mr. Cheney is the man who said that “deficits don’t matter.” May I say that Mr. Cheney is a consummate fool?
Now it appears that as soon as Mr. Obama was sworn in to the Presidency, Mr. Cheney, in concert with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, two television commentators, have set out to destroy the legitimacy of his election. In Mr. Cheney’s case, he has continued to defend the idea that Obama is exposing this country to great risks.
If you take Cheney’s contention and reduce it to a syllogism, it might run sort of on this order. His major premise is that this country was protected during the eight years of Bush’s Presidency by the fact that we had advanced interrogation techniques in place. His minor premise is that Barack Obama is doing away with those techniques, which most of us consider torture. His conclusion, therefore, is that the United States is courting a great danger simply by having Mr. Obama as its President.
During the eight years when Mr. Cheney was in power, he was greatly in favor of the so-called advanced interrogation techniques. For example, after we had captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was waterboarded 183 times during the month of March, 2003. Two of Mohammed’s partners were waterboarded similarly during that period. In the case of Mr. Mohammed, it appears that he was waterboarded on the order of three times per day during the entire month of March. And this is called “advanced interrogation techniques.” I know a little about military service and I will tell you that this is nothing other than torture.
To buttress his case, Mr. Cheney has trotted out his wife Lynn, who promptly got into a fight with Nora O’Donnell of MSNBC who cut the interview short. Dick Armey then came to the defense of Cheney. You may recall that Armey was a member of the House of Representatives from Texas and eventually rose to its leadership. He is known mainly for his idea that oversight of our financial institutions should have been abandoned. He has no military expertise whatsoever, certainly nothing on the interrogation of prisoners.
It seems to an independent observer such as myself that in the case of Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney, logic has taken one brutal beating in their defense of “advanced interrogation techniques.” Both of them have to know that every independent observer will conclude that such techniques involve nothing less than torture. But what they seem to be saying is that if the President of the United States says that we don’t engage in torture, as Bush did say, then the people who carry it out have no responsibility whatsoever. Again, I gag. And I apologize for the assault on logic and decency when it comes to the remarks of Madame Rice and Mr. Cheney.
Now, as to the title of this piece, Cheney has been around Washington for a long time, first as a Representative in the House from the state of Wyoming. He has been chief of staff to one of the Republican presidents as well as Defense Secretary to another and finally, of course, he served for eight years as the Vice President of this country. In all of those jobs, Cheney exhibited no sense of humor whatsoever. His only attempt was to say about an opponent’s thought that “you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the final analysis it is still a pig.” I don’t find a lot of humor in that statement but it seems to convulse Mr. Cheney.
My final thought is that perhaps if Cheney and Rice were to become commentators on the Fox Television Network, they could abuse logic endlessly. And it would have the endorsement of perhaps 20 to 25% of the American electorate. Perhaps they could tell more stories about lipstick for pigs, which might be enjoyed by their audience.
E. E. CARR
May 2, 2009
Essay 382
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: The lipstick is the label “advanced interrogation technique.” The pig is torture.
If I recall correctly, this was also a favorite saying of Palin. There’s some Republican strategist out there who is positively convinced that it’s brilliant.